Presumably it would.
Exactly; it is not.
However, using the flawed "logic" of the court in question, it is sex discrimination.
That is having an unrelated policy which happens to apply more to women than men.
Stretching things too far?
- Thread starter EFLImpudence
- Start date
However, using the flawed "logic" of the court in question, it is sex discrimination.
That is having an unrelated policy which happens to apply more to women than men.
Sponsored Links
How many more men are in prison than women? Is the law being discriminatory or just being the law?
I would say it is discrimination against benefit claimants (possibly justified) but the landlords were not condemned for that.
The point I am making is that it is not sex discrimination just because more women happen to claim than do men.
I cannot see how any one can argue against that.
Sponsored Links
Yes that seems to be the most logical conclusion that can be drawn.
The only thing I can see is that if it is common knowledge that a majority of DSS are women, then maybe some unspoken implication can be drawn.
I don't think so.
I managed fifteen flats for ten years and the only consideration is being paid.
I would say the woman in the article is not actually what I would consider "DSS" in that she receives some form of top-up to her wage.
"On benefit" or "DSS" to me means an unemployed person who has no other income and as such became undesirable when the benefit office decided to pay the housing benefit to the claimant, rather than directly to the landlord, as a way of trying to instill a sense of responsibility to the claimant.
Of course, this did not work and instead lead to, in my experience, an increase in the sale of, for example, iphones.
There used to be nothing more infuriating than getting a message saying 'Can't pay the rent this month - sent from my iphone' knowing they had just received the rental amount.
Plus - the Housing Benefit Office do not pay a deposit but give a 'bond' and say they will pay for any damage at the end of a tenancy - but, of course, the procedure is extremely laborious and time consuming.
So, it is as much, if not more, a case of not wanting to have to deal with the bureaucrats as it is not wanting the tenant as a person.
Consequently no more DSS unemployed people of whichever gender were given a tenancy.
I managed fifteen flats for ten years and the only consideration is being paid.
I would say the woman in the article is not actually what I would consider "DSS" in that she receives some form of top-up to her wage.
"On benefit" or "DSS" to me means an unemployed person who has no other income and as such became undesirable when the benefit office decided to pay the housing benefit to the claimant, rather than directly to the landlord, as a way of trying to instill a sense of responsibility to the claimant.
Of course, this did not work and instead lead to, in my experience, an increase in the sale of, for example, iphones.
There used to be nothing more infuriating than getting a message saying 'Can't pay the rent this month - sent from my iphone' knowing they had just received the rental amount.
Plus - the Housing Benefit Office do not pay a deposit but give a 'bond' and say they will pay for any damage at the end of a tenancy - but, of course, the procedure is extremely laborious and time consuming.
So, it is as much, if not more, a case of not wanting to have to deal with the bureaucrats as it is not wanting the tenant as a person.
Consequently no more DSS unemployed people of whichever gender were given a tenancy.
Yes that makes a lot of sense.
"I can afford an iphone contract, but not the rent" .......that made me laugh, although Im sure not funny at the time
Obviously this affects me as a landlord, but I think this pretty much sums up the article:
''The thousands of lettings agents and landlords around the country who reject housing benefit claimants could be flouting equality laws, due to a recent legal case.''
Emphasis on could.
I'll be watching this closely.
''The thousands of lettings agents and landlords around the country who reject housing benefit claimants could be flouting equality laws, due to a recent legal case.''
Emphasis on could.
I'll be watching this closely.
Sponsored Links
